Oliver Jurors Quizzed On Death Penalty

January 15, 1991|by GAY ELWELL, The Morning Call

Attorneys selected four jurors yesterday for the murder trial of Scott Douglas Oliver in an afternoon session punctuated by frequent requests by prosecutors for more in-depth questioning of potential jurors on the subject of the death penalty.

Northampton County Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr., presiding over his first murder case since he was appointed to the bench last May, denied the requests and instead asked potential jurors general questions about whether they would be unable to impose the death penalty for any moral, ethical or religious reason.

The prosecution, represented by District Attorney Donald B. Corriere and Assistant District Attorney James J. Narlesky, is seeking a first-degree murder conviction and the death penalty for Oliver, 22, an Easton resident. He is charged with the Aug. 20, 1989, rape and strangling of 11-year-old Melissa Jaroschak.

Defense attorney Gary Asteak also objected to the selection process, entering an exception to the methods used.

The session got testy at times, with Simpson raising his voice and telling Corriere, "Comments like that are not acceptable in this courtroom" after Corriere, a look of puzzlement on his face after Simpson yet again stymied his pursuit of a Steel City man's position on the death penalty, told the judge he had no further questions for the man.

In a capital case, one in which the death penalty is sought, state court rules say potential jurors must be questioned individually about their qualifications to serve unless a defendant gives up that right. That questioning by prosecution and defense attorneys must take place before a judge, who may choose to pose the questions.

The rules also say a judge may permit further questioning by the lawyers, "as he deems proper."

Ordinarily in Northampton County capital murder trials, judges allow the attorneys to conduct the largest part of juror questioning, giving them wide latitude and usually intervening only when a potential juror indicates he or she has difficult understanding a question posed by a lawyer. Those interventions most frequently take place during death penalty discussions.

In contrast, Simpson kept a tight rein on the proceedings, asking lawyers to tell him what questions they wanted to ask and then granting or denying permission to pursue those lines of questioning.

A group of 12 jury candidates was called to the courtroom and Simpson addressed them with a series of general questions, including whether they could impose the death penalty, and whether they had read or heard of the case or Oliver, or discussed the matter before coming to court.

None of the seven men and five women gave affirmative answers to any of those questions.

But under individual questioning, one of the woman was hesitant in her answers to Simpson's question about the death penalty. Based on her hesitancy, Simpson directed Corriere to question her further.

At that point, the woman said that for personal reasons, she would have a problem imposing the death penalty. Simpson granted Corriere's request to excuse her from the trial.

He also granted Narlesky's motion to dismiss another woman who also said that she would be unable to impose the death penalty, even though it is the law.

With the next juror candidate, Narlesky tried to continue probing, but Simpson interrupted him, asking why the issue was presenting such a problem and saying, "Do you feel the question I've asked is inadequate?"

Narlesky started to respond, but Asteak asked to have the potential juror removed from earshot of the discussion. When he had gone out, Narlesky used those two women as an example of the need for more probing questioning on the issue. "They stood mute on the initial questions," he said. Only after more searching questions did they come to understand the responsibility entailed in a death penalty, he said.

"The death penalty issue is one I feel some jurors may not understand without some very specific questions," Narlesky said. "We don't mean to argue with the court, but we're trying to fulfill our responsibility to the commonwealth."

Simpson made no response except to order the juror back to the courtroom. Once the witness took the stand, Simpson asked him again if he had any moral, ethical or religious beliefs against the death penalty.